Now for the angry September 11th post

[trinityvixen]

From The New York Times:
Sunday evening, Mr. Bush paid tribute to the victims, laying wreathsin small reflecting pools at ground zero, one in the footprint of eachtower. It was a hint of life in a place that still brims with memoriesof death, a reminder that even five years later, the attacks are not sovery distant.

He vowed that he was “never going to forget the lessons of that day.”

Oh no? How come all of the goodwill and togetherness got swept away so you could continue doing as you wanted? Perhaps because you played hate politics to stay in power? Do you not remember how it was immediately after? How people came together and how the world wanted to help us, help us heal, share our grief? Perhaps you don't remember, Mr. Bush. Maybe Jon Stewart can remind you. (Link stolen from newredshoes, but I'm sure she'd encourage me to pass it on).

Comments

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I was more asking how Bush could have done anything, short of resigning, that would have satisfied the protester kooks. Or, for that matter, you (though you're of course nothing like the protester kooks--sorry for the insinuation.)

I appreciate the apology. If we are going to use the fringiest of the fringe to define our positions, there can be no debate. That is why I do not believe the left is the one to have divided the electorate. Bush started it back in 2000 with his absolutely DEPLORABLE campaign tactics that managed to get John McCain--whose policies were centrist enough and he was venerable enough that I would have voted for him over Gore, probably--to look like an insane bastard-fatherer when he was a patriot, an established statesman and a wonderful man who adopted children regardless of their race. I don't want to get bogged down in a "You started it!" thing, but Rove's tactics were scarily effective, and he used them to drive the wedge against the center by promising things to the fringe. As soon as the election was over, Bush forgot about occupying the center--surprise surprise--and went right back to the big-business friendly right. That's not very centrist or unifying, you ask me. And most people did accept, even if they hated it, that he was president and that was that (I sure hated it and it felt like a cheat, but I wanted the thing to be over so we didn't look ridiculous).

Speaking of looking ridiculous...
And I fucking hated that Clinton sold out the Lincoln Bedroom as a hotel while flashing his willy to any girl he found attractive and could corner in private. But Clinton wasn't a divider, right?

Aside from asking Lewinski to lie, there isn't anything about his affairs that affected his presidency, was there? Leaders of other countries were embarrassed for us that we made such a big deal over Clinton's sex life. He had plenty of other failings, and we chose the one that most scandalized our Puritan sensabilities whereas most of the rest of the world thought it was the height of rudeness to call attention to a man's mistresses. It's funny I should argue they're right given that's the most sexist drivel ever, but the point is that it didn't stop him being effective as a President until they impeached him and forced things to stop for it.

Bush, on the other hand, actively acts an idiot when he's out of the country, calling into question his fundamental ability to do the job he was elected to do. There is a lot of forgiving of his obvious lack of high intelligence and understanding of subtlety because he's "one of us." Pardon me, but a man who can't read prepared speeches well, who forgets key words when introducing the People's Republic of China, and who basically pals around instead of working with foreign leaders? That's damaging. He behaves in an undignified manner when working in an official capacity. Much as I loathe Clinton's sexual practices, he didn't hump legs at meetings or while he was on the job (and the man worked some ninety-hour weeks, so that he fit in an affair around that is actually pretty impressive).

The foreign goodwill dry up? Was because Bush was bent on Iraq. No, we hadn't invaded. But he had no evidence and he was carrying a grudge, so some weren't too thrilled about his redirection from Afghanistan. It's a tribute to his successful spinning that some double-digit percentage of the population does still believe Saddam had anything to do with September 11th (but, because the President never sssaaaaaaaaaaiiiid that exaaaaaaactly, he can't be called a liar, even though he heavily implied and raped the September 11th raw emotions to do it). Why did he take issue with Iraq not following a UN resolution? Why not examine the abuses of other nations, equally faulty with less brittle history with the Bush family? Hmmm, I wonder...